Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I honestly never saw myself in an MX-5, but had the opportunity in 2012 to snatch up a 2011 Grand Touring model with the power retractable hardtop with only 1,400 miles on her for $23k.
Never owned a convertible before, so wanted to "check that box", and I've heard great things about this car over the years.
It's a blast to drive...would I like more HP? Absolutely! But, with a 6 speed manual transmission, you can REALLY make use of the available HP and get this lightweight car to hustle. The handling and precision is nothing short of amazing.
The MX-5 outhandles my previous sportscars: 2005 Nissan 350Z, 1993 Toyota MR2, 1991 Mazda RX-7 and 1987 Pontiac Fiero GT - V6.
The car doesn't get its props with everyone...More folks need to drive it and realize that it is a real deal sportscar, even if it isn't a beast on the road like a 'Stang.
Thinking about trading her in after the summer maybe (for a V6 or V8 powered car...much as I love the MX-5, I guess my need for some more speed is starting to set in)..just not sure what to get.
I only owned one Mazda and it was a minivan, the 2006 MPV. I have to admit, it was fun to drive and on a 2,000 mile trip it averaged 26 MPG. At the time it was the best option for me. I had to replace a couple of ignition coils which were a pain, but it was a diy job and overall I liked the car. I've also driven some Mazda rental cars and enjoyed driving them. Unfortunately, something about them makes me look elsewhere. I think the new ones look cartoonish, and if I'm paying 20k+ I'm going to look elsewhere. Also, other manufacturers have better residual. I do like them, but I like other options better.
Mazda like Nissan will always be a third tier Japanese automaker.
The zoom zoom trademark was the sound of rust in the making
Speaking of rust, it would appear that Mazda uses thin sheet metal as I have seen numerous Mazda 3 vehicles with widespread rust issues here in Wisconsin that are no more than 5-7 years old...
Why not Mazda? I keep looking at them because they
1. Look great - good styling
2. Drive well - good handling and power, if you are ok with 4 cyl performance (no V-8's here)
3. They are smaller cars (a plus to me) that do both 1 and 2 well.
And I keep discarding the thought because:
4. They have very spotty quality and reliability records. Sometimes they do as well as Honda and Toyota. Sometimes they do as poorly as VW (now there is a REAL gag-me). Sometimes you get 200K plus and no sweat, and sometimes you get 30K and then a lot of shop time. So, when you buy one, which one are you getting? I can never tell, and that slows me WAY down when considering a purchase.
I compare those thoughts to my Camry - closing on 300K. Insurance companies have "totaled" it twice, and I've fixed it both times, and it was worth every cent. Most reliable car I've ever owned.
My Honda - a '78 Accord - and to my mind one of the best Accord years ever - went 250K with little maintenance but the body rusted through.
I had one US car in this league of reliability - a Dodge 6 cyl p/u. Great p/u. It had 80K on the speedo when I bought it - but it had surely been turned back. It was obviously over 100K. But I took it another 75 or so and then sold it as I wasn't using it anymore. And needed the bucks at the time. Reliable as all get-out.
My Mitsubishi (Expo) - not quite in the same league of quality. Interior finish had some minor issues compared to Toyo and Honda. Good vehicle, but not quite in the same league.
VW - ouch. I'll never ever go there again. Great driving, great handling, but viciously abysmal quality issues, and management that does not seem to care so much about the customer. More concerned about making a good impression - "Wow" factor.
So, Mazda and Subaru have yet to be tried in my stable. Subaru because the cockpit is always too small for me. I've been down to test drive one many times - always the same problem. Interior design is poor (at least for me). And Mazda? I've had several as rentals, and test driven more - but I just keep running into their questionable reputation for quality. And, the used models I've test-driven bear this out - too many little things that leave me with questions.
I once bought an Austin America because I could get it for $400 and it ran. Figured to myself, what could go wrong that I can't just junk it? Learned some lessons on that one. For those who don't know - it used the same oil for the engine and the transmission. That car taught me to be more suspicious of "small" issues when considering a car. Of course, what I learned there did not universally mean I always could pick the good car. Good example was the VW - there was a car I thought would be a great one. But, over the next few years, it beat me into submission - it was not only not a great car, it was one of the worst. But, one of the points here is that not ALL VW's are problematic. Some are, some aren't. Hey! Didn't I say something like that about the Mazda already? There ya go!
I have just never liked the look of Mazdas after the 90s, but they are making nice cars again. I don't think I like them because of the bland interiors and lack of technology. They also stopped making large luxury cars... remember the 929? I loved the 1992-96 929, but it is rarely seen these days. I never had understood why Honda never made a car to compete with Avalon or Maxima, but that is an entirely different issue.
A friend of mine had an '08 Mazda 6. It needed a new tranny at 38K and a new engine at 59K. I had another friend with one that had the same problems.
I think the new Mazdas deserve a look, especially the new Mazda 6. I just have never been a fan.
My daily-driver is a 1991 Miata. Very pleasant car - but definitely underpowered, and rust is an issue.
Mazda is known for being more quirky than Toyota or Honda. It hasn't quite connected as well with the mainstream American consumer. Present offerings from Toyota, Honda and Nissan have a midsized sedan with 3.5L-3.7L V6... horsepower is approaching 300. Does Mazda offer anything comparable?
Also, Mazda lacks a halo-division (Lexus, Infiniti, Acura). Consequently, there's no trickle-down effect. And there is no true luxury RWD sedan.
So many threads about Camrys, Accords, and even Nissan but nobody mentions Mazdas possibly the most innovative brand in Japan.
I can think of past and current designs from Mazda to be overall better buys than comparable models from Honda/Toyota/Nissan.
Mazda 3 specifically the sedan is better looking than Corollas and more power than Civics at the same level trims.
Mazda 6 this year looks like a luxury car compare to Camry and Accord.
Not a single SUV from Honda or Toyota that is as good looking as a CX-9.
Finally there is still no competition to the Mazda 5, a mini MPV. With 3 rows of seating and doesn't look and weigh like a full size minivan.
As someone who has either owned or had family members own numerous Mazdas (more, in fact, than any other brand), I can tell you very clearly why I have no love for Mazda. The quality over the long term is simply not there. Period. I don't care how nice a car looks, if it's built like a tin can and - as was the case with my Mazda 323 - begins to rot after only two garaged years, I'm not buying another one. That's not the case with either the Honda or Toyota I currently own so there's your answer from me.
I find it very amusing that car "enthusiasts" often trash the Camry, for example, as being an "appliance" (as if the competition isn't much the same) bought by mindless idiots who have no idea what a quality driving experience is. Clearly, it sells so well because these morons have more disposable income than gray matter. Might it not also be the case that those people value quality and longevity above all else? Isn't that a primary measure of intelligent buying?
FYI: I had your beloved Mazda 3 as a rental a month ago and I'm sorry to report that things haven't changed. The doors were as thin as a tin can and, after only 30,000 miles, the car had a nasty (sporty?) trans axle whine emanating from the front end. We're in the market for a new car to replace the Honda and, if I had any inclination to once again consider Mazda, it was dashed by that rental experience ... Oh well ...
I'm someone who couldn't care less about performance automobiles, I want a reliable and functional sedan to get me from point a to point b and keep running for at least 15 years. I own a 2004 Mazda 6. I would not buy one again unless they've fixed the turning radius on the darn thing. I might as well be driving a boat for all the turning radius I've got. Also, the center console design is terrible: you can't put in a new, modern, aftermarket radio system because it's got one solid piece of molded plastic that just fits the CD slot.
It is but its far too underpowered for me (much like the BRZ/FRS twins). They used to make a Mazdaspeed Miata with a turbocharged engine but that went the way of the dodo.
The Mazdaspeed Miata was actually at best marginally better than the normal Miata.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
